The Beauty of Women in Ministry, Part Two

1 Corinthians 11:2-16

I praise you for remembering me in everything and for holding to the teachings  just as I passed them on to you.

^3 Now I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God. ^4 Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head. ^5 And every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head—it is just as though her head were shaved. ^6 If a woman does not cover her head, she should have her hair cut off; and if it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut or shaved off, she should cover her head. ^7 A man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man. ^8 For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; ^9 neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. ^10 For this reason, and because of the angels, the woman ought to have a sign of authority on her head.

^11 In the Lord, however, woman is not independent of man, nor is man independent of woman. ^12 For as woman came from man, so also man is born of woman. But everything comes from God. ^13 Judge for yourselves: Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered? ^14 Does not the very nature of things teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him, ^15 but that if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For long hair is given to her as a covering. ^16 If anyone wants to be contentious about this, we have no other practice—nor do the churches of God.

Last week I made three promises to you about this topic of women in ministry. I promised that at the end of the messages you would be:

1. amazed at the necessity of this topic, because it affirms and respects women much more than the opposing view.

2. surprised at the relevancy of this topic, because it will touch nearly every area of your life.

3. stunned at the Biblical proof for this belief, because it pierces the heart of the eternal Godhead.

Last time we saw how the Biblical view represents a higher view of women that the view of evangelical feminists. In this Biblical view, usually called the complementarian view, because men and women complement one another in their roles, women are declared to be completely equal in worth as both men and women bear the image of God. Men and women are equal in worth but have different roles. Women are to submit to their husbands and husbands are to sacrificially love their wives. Women are to submit to authority of the elders and the elders are to lead with a servant’s heart. Men and women are equal, yet they have different, complementary roles.

But to many people that does not sound possible. How can men and women be fully equal while a woman are not permitted to serve as an elder? How can a woman be equal to her husband if she is supposed to submit to his leadership? Some would call this double-speak. Some would say we are just pretending to champion equality, but in reality we are oppressing and severely limiting women. It doesn’t seem fair. If you are an evangelical feminist this probably makes you angry, but even if you have accepted these differences in roles, I would hazard a guess that you don’t know the reason. Men, could you give a Biblical defense about why women are not permitted to be elders? Women, could you do the same, and could you do it with confidence and full acceptance? I think most of the answers would sound something like this: “because the Bible says so.” That’s certainly a true answer, but we need a much more complete answer than that. How can men and women be equal but have different roles? In what sense can that be truly fair? Another way of asking the question is, “How do you explain difficult passages like this one from chapter 14? Should we explain them away like the evangelical feminists do, or is there a better way?

The answer comes right away in verse three. Now I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God. Let me diagram this for you. To illustrate the first phrase, I would place Christ in a position over man and then draw an arrow of authority going from Christ down to the man. Would we all agree that Jesus Christ is the authoritative head over every man? There are no disagreements on this first point, correct? Now to illustrate the next phrase, “the head of the woman is man,” I would draw the same arrow going down from the man to the woman. Just as Christ holds a position of authority over man, so man holds a position of authority over women. Have I fairly represented this verse in my diagram? You may not like or agree with it, but this is what it says. I have to say, that even as a man I did not fully understand why God set up the lines of authority like this, so I can imagine that some women struggle with this. Also, we still haven’t answered the question of how men and women can be equal in worth but have different roles.

The last phrase in verse three is the key to all of our questions: “the head of Christ is God.” I would add this phrase to our diagram by placing God over Christ with a line of authority going downward. Now I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God. Do you see how the diagram matches the verse? Now the first questions you should be asking at this point are this: Are God the Son and God the Father fully equal to one another? Is Christ in any way inferior to his Father? We have to affirm that there is no difference between the Son and the Father. A multitude of Scriptures affirm that they are both fully God; they are equal in essence and being. The Son is not inferior to the Father. If they are equal in essence and in being, how then can the Father be the authoritative head over the Son? Wouldn’t this make the Son inferior? No, the Son is not inferior to the Father for this is impossible, but the Son has taken a subordinate role to the Father. This is what is known as “functional subordination”: in terms of his function and his divine role, the Son is subordinate to the Father, but in terms of essence and being, they are completely equal. Over thirty times in the gospel of John, Jesus indicated in various ways that he was sent to do the will of the Father. A good example of this is from John 8. “I do nothing on my own but speak just what the Father has taught me…for I always do what pleases him.”

His role was subordinate to the role of the Father. He is the Son after all, and the Father is the Father. So when Jesus rode into Jerusalem on a donkey with palm branches spread before him in worship and adulation, he was doing this according to the will of his Father. He was acting in subordination to his Father’s desires. His journey into Jerusalem, which in a few days would lead to his crucifixion, was all accomplished in submission to the will of the Father. This submission was so pervasive that it was impossible for Jesus to act outside the Father’s will. Jesus’ subordination led him from his conception all the way to the cross. This is what we mean by functional subordination and it was not limited to his earthly ministry, however. It will continue for all eternity.

Do you see how the functional subordination of the Son to the Father is directly linked to the functional subordination of women to men? Men and women are equal in being and worth, but after the pattern of Christ, women are to take a subordinate role to men. Just as Jesus was fully equal to his Father but in submission took on a unique role as the Son, so women are equal to men but in submission are to take on their unique role as women. This changes the entire perspective, does it not? This literally changes everything when it comes to the roles of men and women in the church. God has created us as equals, but with different roles to fulfill. In other words, women who want to take the role of authority away from men are trying to subvert their God-given role as women. And men who refuse to lead are likewise trying to subvert their God-given role as men. Every bit of these roles of authority and submission are rooted in the eternal Godhead. The essence of the eternal relationships of the triune God are reflected in the Biblical roles of men and women. When God said, “Let us make man in our image,” the functional subordination of the Son to the Father was an undeniable part of the image of God. If you deny these roles, you are aspiring to work against the created order. If you deny these roles, you are denying the very image of God stamped upon your soul.

I think this answers the question about “fairness” in regard to the differing roles of authority and submission between men and women. If someone is to say, “It’s not fair that women should have to submit to men,” you could respond by saying, “Is it fair that Christ should submit to his Father?” It’s almost a non-sensical question, because it is simply the way God has ordained it. It’s not a question of fairness but rather a matter of living according to the way God has created us.

Let me take a moment and explain how this relates to head coverings in chapter eleven. Once Paul established the Biblical priority of headship in verse three, it was an easy transition to teach that women should wear a head covering, as verse ten says, as a sign of authority. Paul meant that the woman’s head covering was a sign of submission to the men in the church. The head covering was not a command in itself but merely a first century manifestation of the principle of submission. What most Christians have done today is to lift the principle of submission out of this text and leave the head covering in the first century. Some Christian women still cover their heads as a sign of submission, but I do not believe this is a Biblical necessity. Moreover, Paul only taught that women should cover their heads while they were praying or prophesying in public worship. He never advocated head coverings twenty four hours a day. It is possible to maintain the principle of submission without the use of head coverings, just as we do, but the danger is that we also throw out the principle along with the head covering. We need to be on guard against doing that.

That’s the stunning Biblical reason for the complementary roles between men and women. There is actually more explanation found in other Scriptures, but I will stop here for now, because I want to leave time to show you the amazing relevance of this topic. This subject goes way beyond the decision of who gets to sit on the elder board and impacts the very foundation of our faith and the gospel. Let me again read a quote I read last week. . “The common denominator in all of this [discussion about evangelical feminism] is a persistent undermining of the authority of Scripture in our lives. My conclusion at the end of this study is that we must choose either evangelical feminism or Biblical truth. We cannot have both.”

Liberal theology

What this man is saying is that evangelical feminism will almost inevitably lead to rank liberalism and full rejection of the authority and reliability of Scripture. And you can easily see how this could happen. How do you take something so clear as verse three, “the head of the woman is man,” and say that men are women have equal roles? The only way you can accomplish this is to cast doubt on the reliability of the whole passage. Evangelical feminists perform these amazing theological gymnastics and play word games with the inspired text and they always seem to end up with one of two conclusions: either Paul didn’t actually write this section of Scripture, in other words, it was added in later by someone copying the text, or else Paul just didn’t mean what he said. When he wrote “the head of a woman is man,” he didn’t really mean that men have authority over women. They do this by changing the meaning of the words. They claim that the word “head” cannot mean “authority.” The inevitable result of this is an undermining of Biblical inerrancy. If you can change the meaning of words to suit your taste with this issue, then why not change Scripture in other places. And this is exactly what is taking place.

There was a study of the mainline denominations and the path they all took toward their liberal theology. Here is the typical pattern that was discovered.

1. Abandoning Biblical inerrancy
2. Endorsing the ordination of women.
3. Abandoning the Bible’s teaching on male headship in marriage.
4. Excluding clergy who are opposed to women’s ordination.
5. Approving homosexual conduct as morally valid in some cases.
6. Approving homosexual ordination.
7. Ordaining homosexuals to high leadership positions in the denomination.[1]

You can see that after a denomination removes Biblical inerrancy, it is a slippery slope toward all of the other things. So far, only the Episcopal church has gone all the way to point #7, but if you follow the news at all, this denomination is falling to pieces. This past week I talked with a friend who is a member at a conservative Episcopal church in Neenah, Wisconsin and he told me that that they have removed the word “Episcopalian” from the church sign. The evangelical feminists are attacking this foundation of Biblical inerrancy, and once this falls, the rest of these things begin to fall like dominoes.

The second danger of evangelical feminism is the feminization of God. It is inevitable that this viewpoint would lead to addressing God in feminine language. The primary proponents of evangelical feminism is a group called Christians for Biblical Equality. Even the name sounds inviting and engaging, doesn’t it? After all, why would anyone want to be against Biblical equality for Christians? It sounds so intolerant. These are the leaders in the active promotion of evangelical feminism. Please do not think that these people are fringe Christians leaders with little or no influence. They are influential people from well-known organizations. Let me read some of them.

Tony Compolo, Richard Foster, Brian MacLaren, John Stott, Bill Hybels and Ron Sider. If you don’t know all of these names, you will recognize most of the organizations these people represent. InterVarsity Christian Fellowship, Bethel College, Wheaton College, Seattle Pacific University, Willow Creek Church, Youth with a Mission, Fuller Seminary, Denver Seminary, Gordon-Conwell Seminary, Jesus People USA, North Park Seminary and Salvation Army. These are just the ones I could easily locate and I am sure there are many more. I am not suggesting that all of these organizations have sold out to liberalism, but I am saying that this viewpoint of evangelical feminism is penetrating dozens of evangelical organizations and thousands of evangelical churches. As one person said, “not all [evangelical feminists] are liberals, but all liberals are [evangelical feminists].”[2]

Goddess Worship

As I said, this view is leading to a feminization of God as many of these leaders are insisting on using feminine language to address God. Here are a few quotes from members of Christians for Biblical Equality.

 “I think that if you want to in your personal devotions address God as ‘Mother’ I don’t have a problem with that.”[3]

“I believe it is important to call God, ‘Mother’ as well as ‘Father’ in public worship.”[4]

“…there is a good Biblical reason, then, to speak of God as both Father and Mother, both ‘she’ and ‘he’.”[5]

“We may speak of God as Father or as Mother.”[6]

Do you see what this is? This is really nothing less than goddess worship. Of course you remember the controversy over the Da Vinci Code, and one of the driving forces in that heresy was goddess worship. Christians were not taken in by this heresy because it was such an obvious frontal attack on Jesus and the gospel. The deception was just too obvious to be effective because it was walking in the front door. But the deception of evangelical feminism is that liberal theology and goddess worship are sneaking in the back door of tolerance and equality.

I hope that you can see that in the larger Christian arena, an affirmation of evangelical feminism seriously undermines the authority of Scripture and can lead to a slippery slope of pragmatism and liberalism. This happened in the 1980’s. The Evangelical Women’s Caucus declared that homosexuality was acceptable and decided to begin fighting for gay rights. We need to be on guard against these false interpretations and their negative effect on the church, but perhaps the greatest impact is on our local church and our families. I have often said, “as go the leaders, so goes the church.” But an equally true statement is this: “As go the men, so goes the church.” If the men in our church do not understand their Biblical role as leaders, protectors and shepherds over their families and over our church, we are lost as a church. Under the banner of “equality” we have destroyed the Biblical roles of men and women.

Why do women do most of the ministry in the local church? I think it is because women have demanded the right to lead their homes and the men have willingly turned over the leadership. I have known many women who would agree to the Biblical guidelines for men and women in the church, but at home they rule the roost. Such women give lip service to male headship but rigorously practice female headship. Likewise I have known many men who give lip service to male headship but refuse to lead their wives, families and churches. As I said before, if you deny these roles, you are denying the very image of God stamped upon your soul. I realize this has become more and more difficult because we live in a feminist culture that has been penetrated by a powerful feminist worldview. This feminist worldview has now penetrated into our evangelical seminaries and churches and is undermining the created order. I am not suggesting that it is easy to fight against the grain of this feminist culture, but I am saying that it is necessary. It’s not sufficient to simply agree with the Biblical roles between men and women, but we must embrace them as true and live them out.

So to the men, I say LEAD! Lead your wives. Lead your children. Lead your churches. If you sit there thinking, “but I don’t know how to lead,” I say, “Good!” At least you admit that you need to take more leadership. If you want to learn how, we can teach you that, but first you need to want to lead. Before you can lead you must be convinced from Scripture, not by me, that this is your God appointed role. You need to be absolutely convinced that the most masculine thing you could ever do is to accept responsibility for the leadership of your family and the leadership of this church.

And to the women, I say SUBMIT. You must be convinced from Scripture that the most feminine thing you can do is submit to your husband and to the men in our church. If you don’t know how to do that, then that is also good because submission can be taught, just like leadership can be taught, but it must begin with an overwhelming Biblical conviction.

Let me give you an example from the Seder dinner that we attended two weeks ago. The man who led the Seder was a Messainic Jew. He explained that in the Seder, the father was the “Papa,” meaning that the papa was in charge and whatever he said was the law. This man served as the head papa for the entire night, but at each table, one man was chosen to be kind of like the sub-papa. The table papas were still under the authority of the head papa, but they were in charge and the leaders of their own table. Guess who was the papa at our table? I happened to be the only adult male at our table so it was an easy decision! I was the papa and master of my table. I was in charge. I was the leader! Do you know what I did for the next three hours? I served my table. I took each of the Seder foods and walked around the table and served each person. Several times I served the matza bread to my table. I filled the water glasses for everyone at my table. I cleared the dished of everyone at my table. I was the leader, but I led the people at my table by serving them. I was the papa! But I led my table by serving my people.

I tell you, it was a great privilege to serve in this way. It was very humbling to serve, but I also felt proud to serve. It reminds me of what Jesus did with the last few hours of his life. Jesus was only hours away from his arrest and he had one last chance to be with his disciples and teach them. He needed to pass the torch of leadership to these eleven men in the last hours of his life. These men were to be the leaders of the entire gospel-driven, church planting movement that was to come. These men were to be THE leaders of the church. These men were to be in charge. These men were to be the papas of the first church. Jesus had one last opportunity to teach them how to be strong, powerful leaders. And how did he teach them? “He got up from the meal, took off his outer garment, and wrapped a towed around his waist…and began to wash his disciples feet.” He led them by serving them. The strongest leaders are the strongest servants. The most manly, masculine men are the men who serve—men who serve their wives, their families, their churches and their God. The way up is down. The first shall be last. Men…lead! And lead by serving.

Rich Maurer

April 1, 2007